Search

Objective: The Affordable Care Act allows insurers to charge up to 50% higher premiums to tobacco users, making tobacco use the only behavioral factor that can be used to rate premiums in the nongroup insurance market. Some states have set more restrictive limits on rating for tobacco use, and several states have outlawed tobacco premium surcharges altogether. We examined the impact of state level tobacco surcharge policy on health insurance enrollment decisions among smokers.Study Design: We compared insurance enrollment in states that did and did not allow tobacco surcharges, using a difference-in-difference approach to compare the policy effects among smokers and nonsmokers. We also used geographic variation in tobacco surcharges to examine how the size of the surcharge affects insurance coverage, again comparing smokers to nonsmokers.Data Collection: We linked data from two components of the Current Population Survey-the 2015 and 2019 Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the Tobacco Use Supplement, which we combined with data on marketplace plan premiums. We also collected qualitative data from a survey of smokers who did not have insurance through an employer or public program.Principal Findings: Allowing a tobacco surcharge reduced insurance enrollment among smokers by 4.0 percentage points (P = .01). Further, smokers without insurance through an employer or public program were 9.0 percentage points less likely (P < .01) to enroll in a nongroup plan if they were subject to a tobacco surcharge. In states with surcharges, enrollment among smokers was 3.4 percentage points lower (P < .01) for every 10 percentage point increase in the tobacco surcharge.Conclusions: Tobacco use is the largest cause of preventable illness in the United States. State tobacco surcharge policy may have a substantial impact on whether tobacco users choose to remain insured and consequently their ability to receive care critical for preventing and treating tobacco-related disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antimicrobial resistance is a pressing global threat, but companies developing antibiotics are failing. Large pharmaceutical companies recently created the AMR Action Fund, which will invest $1 billion in small antibiotic development companies. To understand the state of antibiotic development in the United States, we conducted a case study of new agents against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Factors contributing to market failures were slow clinical uptake of drugs despite their effectiveness and safety, relatively small numbers of target infections that are insufficient to support existing drugs economically, and an excess of recently approved and pipeline agents with redundant spectra of activity. The AMR Action Fund will provide an immediate lifeline to companies in danger of failing due to an inability to secure investment, but it will not address issues identified in the case study or fix the antibiotic development model or marketplace. The Fund buys time for reforms to salvage antibiotic development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have become increasingly prevalent among employer-sponsored health plans and plans offered through the Health Insurance Marketplace in the United States. This study examined the impact of deductible levels on health care experiences in terms of care access, affordability, routine checkup, out-of-pocket cost, and satisfaction using data from the Health Reform Monitoring Survey. The study also tested whether the experiences of Marketplace enrollees differed from off-Marketplace individuals, controlling for deductible levels. Results from multivariable and propensity score weighted regression models showed that many of the outcomes were adversely affected by deductible levels and Marketplace enrollment. These results highlight the importance of efforts to help individuals choose the plan that fits both their medical needs and their budgets. The study also calls for more attention to improving provider acceptance of HDHPs and Marketplace plans as these plans become increasingly common over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to present the market scenario of biotechnological drugs, especially insulin. In addition to Brazil, a study was conducted that considered the United States market, which has the largest market of biotechnological products in the world and in China, for presenting an increase in investments in the biotechnology area and is a BRICS member. Methods: A market survey of biotechnological drugs and insulin was carried out. The information that was used is provided through the IMS Health Customer Portal from 2010 to 2014, and was searched in the AliceWeb database between 2011 and 2016, and we consulted Insights magazine (published by IMS Health). Information was also obtained from the Brazilian Association of the Pharmaceutical and Pharmaceutical Industries (Abiquif) (2012–2016) and from the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), available on its websites, to identify sales of biotech drugs and, more specifically, insulin. Key findings: The deficit in the Brazilian trade balance between 2012 and 2016, related to medicines, remains high, mainly driven by the acquisition of high value‐added drugs, mainly biotechnological drugs, such as insulin. In 5 years (2010–2014), the value of the commercialization of insulin increased by an average of 100%. In 2010, the total marketing value of insulin was approximately US $16 billion, and in 2014, it was approximately US $29 billion. The three laboratories that stand out in the world, namely, Sanofi, Lilly and Novo Nordisk, are the main laboratories that market insulin in Brazil. Conclusions: The observed results make evident the import dependence for the acquisition of insulin, which can lead to a national shortage and possible cases of death and sequelae from diabetes in patients who did not receive adequate treatment, besides contributing to the trade deficit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Affordable Care Act takes a "patchwork" approach to expanding coverage: Medicaid covers individuals with incomes 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) in expansion states, while subsidized Marketplace insurance is available to those above this income cutoff., Objective: To characterize the magnitude of churning between Medicaid and Marketplace coverage and to examine the impact of the 138% FPL income cutoff on stability of coverage., Design: We measured the incidence of transitions between Medicaid and Marketplace coverage. Then, we used a differences-in-differences framework to compare insurance churning in Medicaid expansion and non-expansion states, before and after the ACA, among adults with incomes 100-200% of poverty., Participants: Non-elderly adult respondents of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2010-2018 MAIN MEASURES: The annual proportion of adults who (1) transitioned between Medicaid and Marketplace coverage; (2) experienced any coverage disruption., Key Results: One million U.S. adults transitioned between Medicaid and Marketplace coverage annually. The 138% FPL cutoff in expansion states was not associated with an increase in insurance churning among individuals with incomes close to the cutoff., Conclusions: Transitions between Medicaid and Marketplace insurance are uncommon-far lower than pre-ACA analyses predicted. The 138% income cutoff does not to contribute significantly to insurance disruptions., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Objective: To examine factors associated with accurate reporting of private and public health insurance coverage., Data Sources: Minnesota health plan enrollment records provided the sample for the Comparing Health Insurance Measurement Error (CHIME) study, a survey conducted in 2015 that randomly assigned enrollees to treatments that included health insurance questions from the American Community Survey (ACS) or the redesigned Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS)., Study Design: Reverse record check study that compared CHIME study survey responses to enrollment records of coverage type (direct purchase on and off the Marketplace, Medicaid, or MinnesotaCare), service use, subsidy receipt, and duration of coverage from a major insurer., Data Collection Methods: Using matched enrollment and CHIME survey data and logistic regression, we examined correlates of accurate insurance type reporting, including characteristics of the insurance coverage, the covered individual, respondent, and family., Principal Findings: Reporting accuracy across treatment and coverage type is high (77%-84%). As with past research, accurate reporting of public insurance is higher for people with characteristics consistent with eligibility for public insurance for both survey treatments. For the ACS treatment, reports of direct purchase insurance are more accurate for enrollees who receive a premium subsidy., Conclusions: Given the complexity of health insurance measurement and frequently changing policy environment, differences in reporting accuracy across treatments or coverage types are not surprising. Several results have important implications for data editing and modeling routines. First, adding premium and subsidy questions in federal surveys should prove useful given the finding that subsidy receipt is associated with reporting accuracy. Second, across both survey treatments, people whose opportunity structures (race, ethnicity, and income) match public program eligibility are accurate reporters of this coverage. This evidence supports using these commonly collected demographic variables in simulation, imputation, and editing routines., (© 2021 Health Research and Educational Trust.)

The Internet has become a resource for everyone for everything. It is accordingly now also a source of sermons and much more for pastors of churches in the USA. In consequence, the Internet shapes and alters how pastors and parishioners practice their religion. Because "the medium is the message," as Marshall McLuhan observed, Internet sermons necessarily reflect and convey something of their Internet source. So, too, the nature and content religious life changes and takes on the characteristics of its new source of inspiration, the Internet. As the dominant expression of technology today, the Internet reveals technology ultimately and in the words of Jacques Ellul as "the real religion of our time." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: States have experimented with the income eligibility threshold between Medicaid coverage and access to subsidized Marketplace plans in an effort to increase coverage for low-income adults while meeting other state priorities, particularly a balanced budget. In 2014, Wisconsin opted against adopting an ACA Medicaid expansion, instead setting the Medicaid eligibility threshold at 100% of the poverty level-a state-funded partial expansion. Childless adults gained new eligibility, while parents and caregivers with incomes between 101-200% of poverty lost existing eligibility., Methods: We used Wisconsin's all-payer claims database to assess health insurance gains, losses, and transitions among low-income adults affected by this partial expansion., Findings: We found that less than one third of adults who lost Medicaid eligibility definitely took up commercial coverage, and many returned to Medicaid. Among those newly eligible for Medicaid, there was little evidence of crowd-out. Both groups experienced limited continuity of coverage. Overall, new Medicaid enrollment of childless adults was offset by coverage losses among parents and caregivers, rendering Wisconsin's overall coverage gains similar to nonexpansion states., Conclusions: Wisconsin's experience demonstrates the difficulty in relying on the Marketplace to cover the near poor and suggests that full Medicaid expansion more effectively increases coverage., (Copyright © 2022 by Duke University Press.)

The Health Insurance Marketplace has offered access to private health insurance coverage for over 10 million Americans, including previously uninsured women. Per Affordable Care Act requirements, Marketplace plans must cover preventive services without patient cost-sharing in the same way as in employer-sponsored insurance (ESI). However, no study has evaluated whether the utilization of preventive services is similar between Marketplace enrollees and ESI enrollees. Using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data for 2014-2016, we identified working-age women with Marketplace plans (n = 792, N = 2,567,292) and ESI (n = 13,100, N = 52,557,779). We compared the two groups' receipt rates of five evidence-based preventive services: blood pressure screening, influenza vaccine, Pap test, mammogram, and colorectal cancer screening. Unadjusted results showed marketplace enrolled women had significantly lower odds of influenza vaccination, Pap test, and mammogram. However, after controlling for other factors, Marketplace insurance was not associated with lower receipt rates of preventive services, except for influenza vaccination (Adjusted OR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.50-0.82). Regardless of an individual's private insurance type, higher educational attainment and having a usual source of medical care showed the strongest association with the receipt of all investigated preventive services. With the increased role of the Marketplace as a safety net in the COVID-19 pandemic, more research and outreach efforts should be made to facilitate access to preventive services for its enrollees., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Commodification of health care is a central tenet of managed care as it functions in the United States. As a result, price, cost, quality, availability, and distribution of health care are increasingly left to the workings of the competitive marketplace. This essay examines the conceptual, ethical, and practical implications of commodification, particularly as it affects the healing relationship between health professionals and their patients. It concludes that health care is not a commodity, that treating it as such is deleterious to the ethics of patient care, and that health is a human good that a good society has an obligation to protect from the market ethos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2016 US presidential election created uncertainty about the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and led to postponed implementation of certain provisions, reduced funding for outreach, and the removal of the individual mandate tax penalty. In this article, we estimate how the causal impact of the ACA on insurance coverage changed during 2017 through 2019, the first 3 years of the Trump administration, compared to 2016. Data come from the 2011-2019 waves of the American Community Survey (ACS), with the sample restricted to non-elderly adults. Our model leverages variation in treatment intensity from state Medicaid expansion decisions and pre-ACA uninsured rates. We find that the coverage gains from the components of the law that took effect nationally-such as the individual mandate and regulations and subsidies in the private non-group market-fell from 5 percentage points in 2016 to 3.6 percentage points in 2019. In contrast, the coverage gains from the Medicaid expansion increased in 2017 (7.0 percentage points) before returning to the 2016 level of coverage gains in 2019 (5.9 percentage points). The net effect of the ACA in expansion states is a combination of these trends, with coverage gains falling from 10.8 percentage points in 2016 to 9.6 percentage points in 2019.

Low-income pregnant women have been Medicaid eligible since the 1980s, but the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s expansion of Medicaid to women preconception has the potential to improve pregnancy and birth outcomes by removing delays in Medicaid enrollment. More substantially, the ACA expanded subsidized nongroup maternity coverage. Pre-ACA, nongroup health insurance had generally excluded maternity coverage and was prohibitively expensive for low-income individuals, but the ACA's creation of the Marketplace made maternity coverage mandatory and provides income-based subsidies. I use a simulated eligibility approach to measure how these two aspects of the ACA impacted pregnancy and birth outcomes for first-time mothers, paying special attention to racial-ethnic differences. I find expanding Medicaid to women prior to pregnancy significantly improves the share of women with a prenatal care visit in the first trimester for non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks. Expansions in non-Medicaid subsidized insurance, such as Marketplace insurance, significantly reduce the share of births paid by Medicaid and increased breastfeeding across all racial and ethnic groups. Neither type of subsidized insurance had significant, robust impacts on birth outcomes., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) improved welfare by expanding, subsidizing, and standardizing healthcare coverage. At the same time, the law also penalizes the remaining uninsured and establishes a benchmark private policy that charges premiums and cost-sharing expenses in the non-group market. This paper introduces a conceptual and empirical framework for evaluating the net effects of ACA coverage expansions for the individual welfare of previously uninsured adults. Using restricted-access data from the 2010-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, I evaluate the short-term welfare effect as a function of health and non-medical consumption. I simulate post-ACA insurance status then evaluate the change in expected medical consumption and the utility of consumption by estimating parameter values for a generalized gamma distribution of the ex-ante spread of healthcare and medical spending for each person. The ACA generates a modest net improvement in individual welfare on average (+ $91). While low-income individuals realize gains (+ $539), all other income-groups realize increasingly large losses. The uninsured majority (65%) realize average losses (- $158). Medicaid beneficiaries realize substantial gains (+ $1309). While in most specifications, exchange enrollees realize average gains (+ $146), just under a quarter (24%) realizes any improvement. The chronically-ill realize substantial gains (+ $1065). The non-chronically-ill majority (71%) realize average losses (- $312). Despite weakly lower risk premiums (- $28), medical spending increases in catastrophic scenarios on average. The ACA improves the welfare of some, especially the low-income and chronically-ill. Medicaid generates unequivocal gains for beneficiaries. Most previously uninsured adults remain uninsured, some of whom pay a penalty. The subsidized cost of ACA private insurance outweighs its benefits for most exchange enrollees.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly improved health insurance coverage in the US, but too many Americans remain under- or uninsured. This article examines federal strategies under consideration that build on the ACA to extend comprehensive coverage to all low-income Americans and increase coverage affordability for middle-income Americans. For low-income Americans these policy options include extending the enhanced match rate offered to states that expanded eligibility for Medicaid in the early years of the ACA to states that have not yet expanded Medicaid and increasing Marketplace cost-sharing subsidies. To address the issue of affordability for middle-income Americans, this article considers options for lowering premiums (for example, extending tax credits to people with incomes above the current eligibility threshold, increasing the generosity of tax credits for those currently eligible, and making reinsurance permanent), lowering cost sharing (such as tying premium tax credits to the second-lowest-cost gold plan rather than the equivalent silver plan and extending federal assistance for cost sharing to people with incomes above the current threshold), and establishing a public option.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) required coordination between Marketplaces, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in an effort to streamline application processes and improve enrollment. We use 2013-2018 data from the American Community Survey and difference-in-difference models to estimate the relationship between Marketplace policy and increases in Medicaid/CHIP coverage observed among pre-ACA eligible children after the implementation of the ACA ("welcome mat effects"). Our sample includes non-disabled, citizen children (0-18) at 139-250% FPL who were Medicaid-/CHIP-eligible before (and after) the implementation of the ACA. Marketplace policies studied include state-based versus federally-facilitated, and whether the Marketplace had authority to directly enroll Medicaid-/CHIP-eligible applicants into public coverage. Models also control for ACA adult Medicaid expansion policy and provide the first estimates in this literature for non-expansion states. Welcome mat effects were present among all Marketplace and expansion policy categories. However, public coverage increased more in states that empowered their Marketplace to enroll publicly-eligible applicants directly into Medicaid/CHIP and these results were driven by enrollment policy, not by choice of state-based versus federal based Marketplaces. Welcome mat effects were largest in expansion states (for most years) and among children whose parents did not hold employer-sponsored insurance coverage. Ranging from 9 to 13 percentage points, these estimates are larger than those found among other subgroups of children in the welcome mat literature. Although there is evidence of lagged effects for both welcome mat effects and the role of Marketplace policy in non-expansion states, by 2018 we find no differences in these measures by expansion policy.

Objective: To measure the accuracy of survey-reported data on features and type of health insurance coverage., Data Source: Enrollment records from a private insurer were used as sample for primary survey data collection in spring of 2015 using the Current Population Survey health insurance module., Study Design: A reverse record check study where households with individuals enrolled in a range of public and private health insurance plans (including the marketplace) were administered a telephone survey that included questions about general source of coverage (eg, employer), program name (eg, Medicaid), portal, premium, and subsidies., Data Collection/extraction Methods: Survey data were matched back to enrollment records, which indicated coverage status at the time of the survey. Concordance between the records and survey data was assessed., Principal Findings: Correct reporting of general source of coverage ranged from 77.8 percent to 98.3 percent across coverage type, premium ranged from 91.6 percent to 96.4 percent, and subsidy ranged from 83.0 percent to 91.0 percent. Using a conceptual algorithm to categorize coverage type resulted in sensitivity of 98.3 percent for employer-sponsored enrollees, and 70.6 percent-77.6 percent for the other coverage types, while specificity ranged from 93.9 percent to 99.4 percent across coverage types., Conclusions: Survey reports of features of coverage suggest they are viable items to include in an algorithm to categorize coverage type. Findings have implications beyond the CPS, particularly for marketplace enrollees., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

The health insurance Marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act include features designed to simplify the process of choosing a health plan in the individual, or nongroup, insurance market. While most individual health insurance enrollees purchase plans through the federal and state-based Marketplaces, millions also purchase plans directly from an insurance carrier (off Marketplace). This study was a descriptive comparison of the decision-making processes and shopping experiences of consumers in two states who purchased a health insurance plan from the same large insurer in 2017, either through the federal Marketplaces or off Marketplace. In a survey, those who selected plans through the Marketplaces reported less difficulty finding the best or most affordable plan than did those enrolling off Marketplace. Respondents in families with chronic health conditions who enrolled through the Marketplaces reported better overall experiences than those who enrolled off Marketplace. Respondents with low health insurance literacy reported poor experiences in enrolling both through the Marketplaces and off Marketplace. Access to consumer assistance in the individual health insurance market should target off-Marketplace populations as well as all populations with low health insurance literacy.

Background: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) established the health insurance marketplaces to provide people the opportunity to obtain healthcare coverage. Assisters have worked with people who may have difficulty understanding the new system and selecting the right plan. This study aims to describe the local availability of assister programs, and examine the factors influencing assister provision.Methods: The 2016 Small Area Health Insurance Estimates data and a database of assister programs constructed using healthcare.gov were analyzed at the county level. Bivariate analysis by assister provision was performed to determine the differences between the two groups, and the hierarchical generalized linear model was used to examine the factors predicting assister availability.Results: The study analyzed 2260 counties nested within 35 states. Assister availability largely varied across counties and states. About half of the counties did not provide assisters at all, and the assister provision rate at state level ranged between 19 - 100%. Counties in metropolitan areas were more likely to provide assister programs than rural areas, and so were counties with higher adult uninsured rate or higher uninsured rate among the people with incomes between 138 - 400% of federal poverty level (FPL).Conclusions: Despite the important role of in-person assistance in plan enrollment, no previous study has examined the local variability of assister program. Our study found a large geographical variation in assister availability, raising concerns about the disparity in access to assister service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]